The
Democrats like to cast blame for their lost elections. Karl Rove's dream
of a permanent Republican majority, while eventually thwarted because
of Bush fatigue, was only possible because the Democrats failed to form
a compelling ideology for a globalized economy.

Definition through negation works in some preliminary stump speeches,
but eventually voters want answers. It's not enough to be Not-Republicans.
How, exactly, are Democrats different than Republicans? The New Deal and
social welfare worked for a country teetering on the brink of Socialism
during FDR's reign, but what now? How are the fat cats in the Democratic
party different than the fat cats in the Republican wing?

And universal health care hardly seems like revolutionary
thinking when the very insurance companies who have been exploiting sick
Americans are invited to the negotiation table. Well, to be fair, they
paid for their seats at the table, since they have donated millions to
the presidential candidates.

The fact that it is 2008 and we're still debating whether
all people should be given health care, fair trials, or shelter (even
if they accepted outrageous mortgage loans from predatory banks), and
whether we should or shouldn't parade around the globe like some kind
of colonizing juggernaut should alert readers to the state of the union.

Democrats are in trouble. They're so in trouble that
the Democratic party—the “liberal” voice of reason—would
be unrecognizable to the lefties of yesterday. Why are issues of nuclear
disarmament, alternative sources of fuel, a department of peace, immediate
Iraqi troop withdrawal, and media diversification constantly forced into
the margins of debate?

Instead, politicians wade through a swamp of semantics,
where they bicker over 30 or 60 or 90-day moratoriums on home foreclosures,
negotiating with the banks instead of defending the American citizens.
They talk about building permanent military bases in Iraq and a gradual
withdrawal of troops, as if our continued presence in that land will bring
anything expect death and destruction for more Iraqis and U.S. troops—as
if a multilateral peace-keeping mission could be worse than the corruption
and ineptitude that has already leveled the country.

Yet, many are quick to crucify Ralph Nader when he speaks
for real change. Many Americans blame him for Al Gore's defeat in 2000,
though, curiously, no Republican ever accuses Pat Buchanan of stealing
votes from Bush in Florida. Pat even took some of Bush's votes in Iowa,
New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin, but because Bush squeaked ahead in
the polls, people fail to reflect upon that.

Bush won (historically, not technically), and so the
Republicans don't obsessively analyze Florida's hanging chads like Democrats
do. Democrats see themselves as an oppressed minority, and so they wander
around the political landscape like poor Midwesterners after a tornado
tears through their trailer park. They just keep looking around, saying,
"What HAPPENED?"

We live in a democracy, which operates under the theory
that ANYONE can run for president. Unfortunately, that usually means anyone
who is rich, but if a candidate can qualify, then he or she can come to
the dance. If we don't have competition in politics, if we attach exceptions
to the rule of democracy, then we might as well live under a monarchy,
plutocracy, or totalitarian system of government.

Thankfully, this is America. Anyone can run for president,
even the most unpopular beast of the animal kingdom—an environmentalist.

It's easy to blame Ralph because, well, he possesses
the stubbornness of the last sane man in a world of screaming lunatics.
He has spent his life working to protect the repressed and exploited,
even though they never thank him. In fact, they frequently mock him like
dumb bullies do the smart kid in class, who always raises his hand when
he knows the answer instead of remaining mute so people will like him.

It's harder to blame Al Gore for Al Gore's defeat. It's
difficult to examine the party as a whole and realize the Democrats have
yet to offer the American people a compelling argument for the next decade,
and maybe that's why Al couldn't sway more independents to his side and
lower the hammer in Florida.

The election wouldn't have come down to a few hundred
votes if Al had blown through the rest of the states with a compelling
mission statement; if he had wowed voters with exciting ideas to address
a globalized marketplace. Or perhaps a shiny new business model for how
the United States can compete with a country supporting itself on slave
labor, like China.

Al didn't deal with specifics. He simply bet that voters
could see that he was smarter and more experienced than Bush. Well, we
know how that worked out.

None of this is Ralph's fault. He's always had specific
plans, and his vision never falters. People hate Ralph because, much like
an asshole teacher who won't let you skate by, he challenges us. He pushes
the country left when the pendulum forever swings right. In a world of
free trade and winner-take-all attitudes, Ralph fights for the environment,
workers, and victims everywhere.

And yes, he will get votes, but he steals nothing from
politicians who don't willingly surrender their campaigns to mediocrity,
or voters who cast ballots true to their consciences. A truly compelling
Democratic nominee will win blue votes, and some reds and independents.
However, if the Democratic nominee offers Americans more of the same centrist-right
rhetoric brought to us during the Clinton years, if they cater to Big
Business and Wall Street, then we may see a repeat of the 2000 election.